TALK: Faery; LINE: illusory contours, celtic knots
From Lee Thompson-Herbert <le...@crl.com>
· rec.arts.ascii
· 6 Oct 1994 18:38 · View full thread
· report
In article <36q38g$5o...@sashimi.wwa.com>, Normand Veilleux <nve...@emr1.emr.ca> wrote: >[...] >Also I seem to have a preference for connected lines. I don't know how >to explain it, but continuity is probably the most important thing for >me. I don't like the space in between lines, but since I can't do >anything about it I don't let it bother me. We have to live with the >limitations of ASCII art and make the best we can with what it has to >offer. > >What I like the most about my version of the faery is the sharpness >of contrast and the continuity of lines. Perhaps my mathematical >mind has something to do with that, who knows ? Maybe it's that you're not very good at edge detection. Depth perception depends a great deal on the ability to detect the edges of objects from variations in shadow and light. The image that hits your retina is _far_ from sharp. There are whole sections of the brain dedicated to cleaning up the very fuzzy image that forms on the retina. (contrary to popular belief, stereopsis is not neccessary for depth perception. It just makes it easier) Take the following optical illusion. Most people can readily see the Second illusory triangle. They often report that the distorted outline of the main triangle is similar to the effect of something seen through a sheet of glass. /\ . / \ . / \ / \ /__ __\ ---- . Unfortunately, the effect isn't quite as sharp as it would be if my main triangle's lines were continuous (except for where the outline breaks). Here's another example of illusory contours. Someone with a lot of time did this portrait of Bob Dobbs using the same principle. Yes, this one _is_ harder to see. bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBoBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobBOBBOBBOBBOBBObbOBBOBBObbOBbobBoBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbOBBOBBOBBOBbobBObboBBObbOBboBbobBobBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobBOBBoBBObbOBBobbOBbobBOBboBboBbobBObBoBBobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobboBBOBboBBObboBbOBboBBobbOBBobBobBObbOBBoBBObbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbOBBOBboBBOBboBbOBbobBobboBBobBobBOBbOBBObBOBBobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobBOBBObboBBOBBoBBOBbobBobBoBBobbOBBOBBObBObBOBBObbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobboBBOBBObboBBOBBOBBOBBobBObBoBBOBbOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobboBBOBBObbOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBObBOBBOBbOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBObbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBOBBobbOBbobbobBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBbOBBOBBOBBobbOBBOBBOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBOBBobBObbobbobboBBOBBOBBOBBOBbOBBOBBObbobbOBBObBOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBOBBoBBobbobbobbobBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBObbobbobbOBBObbOBBobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBOBBOBbobbobbobbobbOBBOBBOBBOBbobbobbobbobbOBBObbOBBobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBOBBobBobbobbobbobbOBBOBBOBbobbobbobbobbobboBBObbOBBobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBObbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBObbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBObbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobBobBObbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobBobBObbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBobBOBbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBobBOBbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBobBOBbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBobBOBbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBobBOBbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBOBboBboBBOBbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBoBBObbobbOBBOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobboBBOBBOBBObboBBOBBOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobboBBObBObBObbOBBOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbOBBOBBOBBOBBObBOBBOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobboBBOBboBBObbobbobboBBObbobbobbobboBBOBbobbobbOBBObBOBBOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobboBBOBBObBObbobBOBBObBOBBobbobbobbOBBOBBOBBObboBBObBOBBOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBobBObbOBBobbobBOBBOBbobbobBOBBOBbobbOBBobbobbOBBOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBobbobBOBBOBBOBbOBBOBbobboBBOBBOBBOBBOBBobbObbOBBOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBobbobBOBboBbOBboBBOBbobbOBBOBBobBoBboBBobbobbOBBObbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBobbobbOBboBBObbobBOBbobbobbobBObBOBbobbobbobbOBBObbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBobbobbobbobboBbobbOBbobbobbobbobbobboBBObbobbOBBObbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBObbobboBBObbobBObboBbobbobbobboBbobbobbobbobbOBBObbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBObbobbobboBbobbobbOBbobbobbobbobboBBobbobbobbOBbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBbOBbobbobbobBObbobbOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbOBBObbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbOBbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBObbOBbobbobbobbobbObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobBObbOBbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBbOBbOBbobbobbobboBbObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbOBBObbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobboBBObbOBbobbobbobBobBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbOBBoBBobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobBObbOBbobbobboBboBBObbobbobboBbOBBobbobbobBObBobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobboBbOBBobbobBObboBBObbobbobBOBboBBObbobboBBObBobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobboBbOBBobboBBobbobBOBbobbOBBObbobBOBBobbOBBObBobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobboBBOBBOBBOBbobBOBBOBBOBBOBBobbobbOBBOBBOBBObBobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobBOBBOBBobbOBBOBBOBBOBBObbobbobboBBOBBOBBObBobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobBOBBOBboBBOBBOBBOBBOBBobbobbOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobBOBbOBboBBOBBOBBOBbobbobBOBBOBBOBbobboBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbOBboBbobBOBBobboBBOBBOBBobboBBobbobboBBObbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbOBboBbobbOBBObbobbobbobbobbOBbobbobbOBBObbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobboBboBbobbobbOBBoBBOBBOBBOBBObbobbobbOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobboBBoBBobboBBObbobbobbobboBBobbobbobBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobboBBoBBobboBbOBBObBOBBOBBOBbobbobbobBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobBobBobboBBOBBobbobbobBobbobbobboBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobBObBObbOBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobboBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbOBbOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbOBboBBOBboBbobbobbobBObbobbobbOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbOBBobbobboBbOBBObboBbobBobbobbobbobbobBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobboBBobbOBbobbobBOBBObbOBBObbobbobbobbobboBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbOBbOBboBBobbOBBOBBobbOBBobbobbobbobbobboBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobBoBBOBboBBobBOBBOBbobBOBBobbobbobbobbobbOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobboBboBBObbOBBoBBOBBObBOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobboBbobbobBOBBOBBOBBobbOBBOBBobbobbobbobboBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobboBboBBobbOBBOBBOBbobboBBOBBOBBOBBOBBobbOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobboBBOBBobbOBBOBBObbobbobBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobboBBOBBObboBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobBOBBObboBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobBOBBOBboBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbOBBOBboBBObbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobboBBOBBOBBobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobBOBBOBbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob -- Alex Suter (asu...@cs.stanford.edu) Chosing continous lines over smooth contour when drawing an object can result in a cartoon-like crudity. Using ascii characters to make lines continuous sometimes means that you sacrifice the quality of the overall picture. Stick figures are fine, but that wasn't my aim. I actually would have rather not used explicit outline techniques at all, but there's no way to get a recognizable face at the size I was drawing. Here's another pair of examples of chosing between outline and contour: four-hand knot oooooo oooooo ooOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOoo OOOOOOoOOOOO OOOOoOOOOOoo OOOOOOo oOOOO OOOOo oOOOOOo OOOOOoo OOOOO OOOOo oOOOOOo 888888 OOOOO OOOOO 888888 ooooooooooooooo OOOOO ooooooo 888888 oooooo ooO0SAOL0FADA0OO0 OOOOO 0000000 888888 00OOOOoo ooOOOo0CHUGAT0OOO0 OOOOO 0000000 888888 0OooOOOoo ooOOOo oooooo OOOOO ooooo oooooo ooOOOoo oOOOOoOOO0 888888 0OOOOOO OO0LEE0OOOOOOOOOOOoOOOOOo OOOOOOOOO0 OOOOOO 0OOOOOO OOOOO0THOMPSON-HERBERT0OO 888888 888888 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 8OOOOO0 OOOOOO 8OOOOOOOOO oOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 8OOOOO0 OOOOOO 8OOOOoOOOo ooOOOo oooooo 88888 8OOOO 000000 oooOOOoo ooOOOoooo OOOOOO ooooooo 8OOOO oooooooooooooOOOoo ooOOOOO0 OOOOOO 0000000 8OOOO 8OOOOOO1994OOOOoo oOOOO0 OOOOOO OOOOOOO 8OOOO 8OOOOOOOOOOOOOo OOOOOO ooooo 8OOOO o00000o oOOOOOo oOOOO 8OOOOo oOOOOOOo ooOOOOOoooOOOO 8OOOoooOOOOOOo ooOOOOOOoOOOO 8OOOooOOOOoo oooOOOOOOOO 8OOOOOOOooo ooooooo oooooooo This knot has fairly sharp boundaries and heavy lines. The contrast makes it quite bold. However, what I've gotten is a very blocky version of what celtic knots traditionally look like. I could probably do some more work to make the lines even more contiguous, but I never bothered, because I didn't think this one was worth the effort. The outline version of this (which is what I originally drew) was so blocky-looking that I trashed it. another four-hand knot ooOOO OOOoo ooOOOOOOO OOOOOOOoo oOOOOOooOOO OOOooOOOOOOo oOOOOOoo oOOO OOOo ooOOOOOOo oOOOO OOO OOO oOOOOo oOOo OOO ^^^^^ ooOOO OOO OOOOOOO00 OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOoo ooOOOo OOO OOOOOOO00 OOO OOOOOOOOOOoOOOooo ooOOOoo OOO OOO ooo ooOOOoo ooOOOoooooo ^^^ .OOO OOO. OOO oooOOoo oOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOO OOOOOOOOOoOOOo oOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOo ooo ^^^ oOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOOOOOOO 0LEE0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo oOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOOOOOOO OOO0THOMPSON-HERBERT0OOOo oOOOo OOO ^OOO OOO^ ooo oOOOo oOOOoo ^^^ OOO OOO ooOOoo oooOOooOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOOOOOOOO OOO oOOOOoo ooOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OO1994OOOO OOo OOOOo ooo OOO OOo oOOoo OOO OOO oOOOo oOOOOOOoo oOOO OOOo ooOOOOOo oooOOOOooOOO OOOooOOOOoo oooOOoOO OOoOOooo oooo oooo This one looks a little more spidery, but the _shape_ is much, much closer to what I would draw on paper. There are times that I would much rather lose some clarity to avoid distorting the overall outline that I'm trying to draw. -- .-`{\--./}.'-.-.------------------------------------------------------------- * .O\<v` *' .+ '. * Lee M. Thompson-Herbert le...@crl.com ' +. O)%~. {\o/}. Chaos Monger and Jill of all Trades le...@deeptht.armory.com . *{/<< *.{/%\} .' KD6WUR
Original message headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fbb9d,bda8214c4d268431 X-Google-Attributes: gidfbb9d,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-07 07:20:32 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sashimi.wwa.com!not-for-mail From: le...@crl.com (Lee Thompson-Herbert) Newsgroups: rec.arts.ascii Subject: TALK: Faery; LINE: illusory contours, celtic knots Date: 6 Oct 1994 13:38:34 -0500 Organization: Ginsu Ninjas Lines: 211 Sender: bob...@wwa.com Approved: bob...@wwa.com Message-ID: <371g7a$51...@sashimi.wwa.com> References: <36q38g$5o...@sashimi.wwa.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sashimi.wwa.com
Related ASCII art in the Gallery
Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:
Make your own ASCII art
Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.
About this message.
This message was posted publicly to the newsgroup
rec.arts.ascii
in 1994 and is mirrored here unchanged as part of the Historic Archives – only email addresses are masked.
The artwork and text belong to their original authors: if you copy a piece, keep the artist's initials or signature intact and credit them where you can.
Are you the author? Contact us to get your posts attributed, connected to your artist profile, or removed.
Report this message
Help us keep the archive clean and accurate. Reports are reviewed by a person – nothing is changed automatically.